| |
Main
Date: 20 Sep 2007 18:02:42
From: Keith
Subject: The moment of truth for Valverde - a DNA Test !
|
Wonder why McQuaid waited until now to pull that trump card, my money
says Valverde refuses to have DNA tested invoking legal rights,
freedom, etc...
http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2007/sep07/sep20news2&from=rss
|
|
| |
Date: 25 Sep 2007 03:52:33
From: amit.ghosh@gmail.com
Subject: Re: The moment of truth for Valverde - a DNA Test !
|
On Sep 24, 11:20 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com > wrote:
> "Frank Drackman" <frankdr...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:4KqdnSh-S5z1Vm7bnZ2dnUVZ_qygnZ2d@comcast.com...
>
>
>
> > The funny things is that most of the riders are not close to being rich.
>
> Floyd Landis hardly made enough to be considered a good payday for a lower
> end major league baseball player. Most of the peloton are paid so little
> that it verges on slavery in the USA.
dumbass.
that reflects the value of their services.
most low-earning bike racers have a choice of some other career that
makes more money.
|
| | |
Date: 25 Sep 2007 06:17:47
From: Tom Kunich
Subject: Re: The moment of truth for Valverde - a DNA Test !
|
<amit.ghosh@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:1190692353.152898.230860@50g2000hsm.googlegroups.com...
> On Sep 24, 11:20 pm, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
>
> most low-earning bike racers have a choice of some other career that
> makes more money.
Where exactly do you live?
|
| | |
Date: 25 Sep 2007 13:38:26
From: Dan Gregory
Subject: Re: The moment of truth for Valverde - a DNA Test !
|
http://www.cyclingweekly.co.uk/news/news_valverde_cleared_by_puerto_judge_article_145641.html?aff=rss
|
| | | |
Date: 25 Sep 2007 06:25:04
From: Tom Kunich
Subject: Re: The moment of truth for Valverde - a DNA Test !
|
"Dan Gregory" <dangregory@brakes.palaver.freeserve.co.uk > wrote in message
news:5lsdnsF9sjcfU1@mid.individual.net...
> http://www.cyclingweekly.co.uk/news/news_valverde_cleared_by_puerto_judge_article_145641.html?aff=rss
With any luck we'll be having police raids on the UCI. I'm all for
imprisoning Dick Pound and torturing him until he tells the truth. Though as
a lawyer he may be congenitally incapable of doing so.
|
| | | | |
Date: 25 Sep 2007 07:28:33
From: Frank Drackman
Subject: Re: The moment of truth for Valverde - a DNA Test !
|
"Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com > wrote in message
news:13fi31mrbaaqe64@corp.supernews.com...
> "Dan Gregory" <dangregory@brakes.palaver.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:5lsdnsF9sjcfU1@mid.individual.net...
>> http://www.cyclingweekly.co.uk/news/news_valverde_cleared_by_puerto_judge_article_145641.html?aff=rss
>
> With any luck we'll be having police raids on the UCI. I'm all for
> imprisoning Dick Pound and torturing him until he tells the truth. Though
> as a lawyer he may be congenitally incapable of doing so.
>
Well, um, Dick Pound is WADA, not UCI...but you knew that.
|
| | | | | |
Date: 25 Sep 2007 07:46:40
From: Tom Kunich
Subject: Re: The moment of truth for Valverde - a DNA Test !
|
"Frank Drackman" <frankdrack@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:nM2dnYGwW_hgh2TbnZ2dnUVZ_tGonZ2d@comcast.com...
>
> "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote in message
> news:13fi31mrbaaqe64@corp.supernews.com...
>> "Dan Gregory" <dangregory@brakes.palaver.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in
>> message news:5lsdnsF9sjcfU1@mid.individual.net...
>>> http://www.cyclingweekly.co.uk/news/news_valverde_cleared_by_puerto_judge_article_145641.html?aff=rss
>>
>> With any luck we'll be having police raids on the UCI. I'm all for
>> imprisoning Dick Pound and torturing him until he tells the truth. Though
>> as a lawyer he may be congenitally incapable of doing so.
>>
>
> Well, um, Dick Pound is WADA, not UCI...but you knew that.
Well, ummm, gee, you don't seem to have known who the head of the UCI is
yourself.
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 25 Sep 2007 14:24:45
From: Frank Drackman
Subject: Re: The moment of truth for Valverde - a DNA Test !
|
"Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com > wrote in message
news:13fi7qmh96jpb6d@corp.supernews.com...
> "Frank Drackman" <frankdrack@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:nM2dnYGwW_hgh2TbnZ2dnUVZ_tGonZ2d@comcast.com...
>>
>> "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote in message
>> news:13fi31mrbaaqe64@corp.supernews.com...
>>> "Dan Gregory" <dangregory@brakes.palaver.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in
>>> message news:5lsdnsF9sjcfU1@mid.individual.net...
>>>> http://www.cyclingweekly.co.uk/news/news_valverde_cleared_by_puerto_judge_article_145641.html?aff=rss
>>>
>>> With any luck we'll be having police raids on the UCI. I'm all for
>>> imprisoning Dick Pound and torturing him until he tells the truth.
>>> Though as a lawyer he may be congenitally incapable of doing so.
>>>
>>
>> Well, um, Dick Pound is WADA, not UCI...but you knew that.
>
> Well, ummm, gee, you don't seem to have known who the head of the UCI is
> yourself.
>
Nice comeback Pottsie
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 25 Sep 2007 17:16:45
From: Donald Munro
Subject: Re: The moment of truth for Valverde - a DNA Test !
|
Tom Kunich wrote:
> Well, ummm, gee, you don't seem to have known who the head of the UCI is
> yourself.
A] Bush
B] Hein
C] Some Dumbfuck Irishman
D] All of the above
E] None of the above
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 26 Sep 2007 12:10:31
From: gbeaskoetxea
Subject: Re: The moment of truth for Valverde - a DNA Test !
|
One more option.
The candidate whose main supporter was Manolo Sainz.
"Donald Munro" <fat-dumbass@hotmail.com > escribió en el mensaje
news:46f923b8$0$17758$ec3e2dad@news.usenetmonster.com...
> Tom Kunich wrote:
>> Well, ummm, gee, you don't seem to have known who the head of the UCI is
>> yourself.
>
> A] Bush
> B] Hein
> C] Some Dumbfuck Irishman
> D] All of the above
> E] None of the above
>
>
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 26 Sep 2007 13:10:16
From: Ewoud Dronkert
Subject: Re: The moment of truth for Valverde - a DNA Test !
|
Upping the Euskadi support? (With the name txange.)
--
E. Dronkert
|
| | | | | | | | | |
Date: 26 Sep 2007 16:08:30
From: Alex Beascoechea
Subject: Re: The moment of truth for Valverde - a DNA Test !
|
Good catch. I highjacked a relative´s computer... (real spelling).
"Ewoud Dronkert" <firstname@lastname.net.invalid > escribió en el mensaje
news:u9fkf3h8dgn3u6ndjqhl0202kp6a69p1e8@4ax.com...
> Upping the Euskadi support? (With the name txange.)
>
>
> --
> E. Dronkert
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 25 Sep 2007 10:32:36
From: Tom Kunich
Subject: Re: The moment of truth for Valverde - a DNA Test !
|
"Donald Munro" <fat-dumbass@hotmail.com > wrote in message
news:46f923b8$0$17758$ec3e2dad@news.usenetmonster.com...
> Tom Kunich wrote:
>> Well, ummm, gee, you don't seem to have known who the head of the UCI is
>> yourself.
>
> A] Bush
> B] Hein
> C] Some Dumbfuck Irishman
> D] All of the above
> E] None of the above
I notice that you were a little afraid to try spelling McQuaid's name
yourself.
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 26 Sep 2007 01:19:20
From: Ryan Cousineau
Subject: Re: The moment of truth for Valverde - a DNA Test !
|
In article <13fihhpsj99rff2@corp.supernews.com >,
"Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com > wrote:
> "Donald Munro" <fat-dumbass@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:46f923b8$0$17758$ec3e2dad@news.usenetmonster.com...
> > Tom Kunich wrote:
> >> Well, ummm, gee, you don't seem to have known who the head of the UCI is
> >> yourself.
> >
> > A] Bush
> > B] Hein
> > C] Some Dumbfuck Irishman
> > D] All of the above
> > E] None of the above
>
> I notice that you were a little afraid to try spelling McQuaid's name
> yourself.
Dumbass:
Afraid to spell it?!? This is the Age of Google. Have you heard of it?
--
Ryan Cousineau rcousine@sfu.ca http://www.wiredcola.com/
"I don't want kids who are thinking about going into mathematics
to think that they have to take drugs to succeed." -Paul Erdos
|
| | | | | | | | | |
Date: 25 Sep 2007 19:40:49
From: Tom Kunich
Subject: Re: The moment of truth for Valverde - a DNA Test !
|
"Ryan Cousineau" <rcousine@sfu.ca > wrote in message
news:rcousine-87CA0F.18192025092007@news.telus.net...
> In article <13fihhpsj99rff2@corp.supernews.com>,
> "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
>
>> "Donald Munro" <fat-dumbass@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:46f923b8$0$17758$ec3e2dad@news.usenetmonster.com...
>> > Tom Kunich wrote:
>> >> Well, ummm, gee, you don't seem to have known who the head of the UCI
>> >> is
>> >> yourself.
>> >
>> > A] Bush
>> > B] Hein
>> > C] Some Dumbfuck Irishman
>> > D] All of the above
>> > E] None of the above
>>
>> I notice that you were a little afraid to try spelling McQuaid's name
>> yourself.
>
> Dumbass:
>
> Afraid to spell it?!? This is the Age of Google. Have you heard of it?
Leave it to you to not have noticed that his name is commonly spelled
McQuade and McQuaid.
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 26 Sep 2007 10:46:00
From: Dan Gregory
Subject: Re: The moment of truth for Valverde - a DNA Test !
|
Tom Kunich wrote:
> Leave it to you to not have noticed that his name is commonly spelled
> McQuade and McQuaid.
The original Gaelic form of Quaid was Mac Uaid, which means son of Watt.
;-)
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 26 Sep 2007 20:38:08
From: Tom Kunich
Subject: Re: The moment of truth for Valverde - a DNA Test !
|
"Dan Gregory" <dangregory@brakes.palaver.freeserve.co.uk > wrote in message
news:5luo1hFac4vgU1@mid.individual.net...
> Tom Kunich wrote:
>
>> Leave it to you to not have noticed that his name is commonly spelled
>> McQuade and McQuaid.
>
> The original Gaelic form of Quaid was Mac Uaid, which means son of Watt.
Being rather a dim bulb though from the looks of the way he's allowing his
riders to be treated.
|
| |
Date: 24 Sep 2007 20:17:45
From: Tom Kunich
Subject: Re: The moment of truth for Valverde - a DNA Test !
|
"Keith" <nospam@nospam.com > wrote in message
news:n965f3p44a8g95v48gi0bt661rv97qqdcl@4ax.com...
> Wonder why McQuaid waited until now to pull that trump card, my money
> says Valverde refuses to have DNA tested invoking legal rights,
> freedom, etc...
>
> http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2007/sep07/sep20news2&from=rss
Yeah, nothing says guilty to a European like someone trying to obtain their
legal rights.
|
| |
Date: 24 Sep 2007 20:49:20
From: amit.ghosh@gmail.com
Subject: Re: The moment of truth for Valverde - a DNA Test !
|
On Sep 24, 3:21 pm, Ewoud Dronkert <firstn...@lastname.net.invalid >
wrote:
> amit.gh...@gmail.com schreef:
>
> > On Sep 22, 7:18 pm, Ryan Cousineau <rcous...@sfu.ca> wrote:
> >> created for the ProTour, like that standalone TTT).
>
> > this is actually a revival of an old event. it was always in eindhoven
> > though i can't remember what it used to be called.
>
> I don't know. Never heard of it and can't find any history of a TTT in
> Eindhoven before 2005.
>
> --
> E. Dronkert
back in the 90s we would get coverage of all the world cup events
including this TTT.
i did find some info on it. it was called the GP de la Liberation :
http://www.velo-club.net/article.php?sid=16469
and was dominated by the dutch teams in the old incarnation.
|
| | |
Date: 24 Sep 2007 22:54:19
From: Ewoud Dronkert
Subject: Re: The moment of truth for Valverde - a DNA Test !
|
amit.ghosh@gmail.com schreef:
> it was called the GP de la Liberation :
Ah yes of course, sorry.
--
E. Dronkert
|
| |
Date: 24 Sep 2007 18:48:21
From: amit.ghosh@gmail.com
Subject: Re: The moment of truth for Valverde - a DNA Test !
|
On Sep 24, 2:33 pm, Bill C <tritonri...@verizon.net > wrote:
> On Sep 24, 2:27 pm, "amit.gh...@gmail.com" <amit.gh...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > On Sep 22, 7:18 pm, Ryan Cousineau <rcous...@sfu.ca> wrote:
>
> > they made their point by excluding Unibet from their events and the
> > UCI was toothless. they didn't remove the UCI sanction from Paris-NIce
> > or any of the other ASO events like they threatened to and Unibet got
> > completely shafted.
>
> And the innocent riders of Unibet got shafted.
> I was going to comment about not arguing with flat-earthers, but in
> this case you just provided an example of what you asked me for. There
> are tons of others.
> I believe that you believe as deeply as they do. That amazes me.
dumbass,
this is where logic leaves you. Unibet was shafted by the organizers
as a statement against the UCI.
the UCI tried to get Unibet into the the grand tours, but they wildly
misjudged the influence they would have on the ASO.
the UCI didn't screw Unibet themselves, they at worst promised
something they couldn't deliver,and of course they were too weak to do
anything about it.
|
| | |
Date: 24 Sep 2007 12:43:17
From: Frank Drackman
Subject: Re: The moment of truth for Valverde - a DNA Test !
|
<amit.ghosh@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:1190659701.059529.150790@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> On Sep 24, 2:33 pm, Bill C <tritonri...@verizon.net> wrote:
>> On Sep 24, 2:27 pm, "amit.gh...@gmail.com" <amit.gh...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > On Sep 22, 7:18 pm, Ryan Cousineau <rcous...@sfu.ca> wrote:
>>
>> > they made their point by excluding Unibet from their events and the
>> > UCI was toothless. they didn't remove the UCI sanction from Paris-NIce
>> > or any of the other ASO events like they threatened to and Unibet got
>> > completely shafted.
>>
>> And the innocent riders of Unibet got shafted.
>> I was going to comment about not arguing with flat-earthers, but in
>> this case you just provided an example of what you asked me for. There
>> are tons of others.
>> I believe that you believe as deeply as they do. That amazes me.
>
> dumbass,
>
> this is where logic leaves you. Unibet was shafted by the organizers
> as a statement against the UCI.
>
> the UCI tried to get Unibet into the the grand tours, but they wildly
> misjudged the influence they would have on the ASO.
>
> the UCI didn't screw Unibet themselves, they at worst promised
> something they couldn't deliver,and of course they were too weak to do
> anything about it.
>
Did UCI return the money that Unibet paid them for a Pro Tour license?
|
| |
Date: 24 Sep 2007 11:33:47
From: Bill C
Subject: Re: The moment of truth for Valverde - a DNA Test !
|
On Sep 24, 2:27 pm, "amit.gh...@gmail.com" <amit.gh...@gmail.com >
wrote:
> On Sep 22, 7:18 pm, Ryan Cousineau <rcous...@sfu.ca> wrote:
>
> they made their point by excluding Unibet from their events and the
> UCI was toothless. they didn't remove the UCI sanction from Paris-NIce
> or any of the other ASO events like they threatened to and Unibet got
> completely shafted.
And the innocent riders of Unibet got shafted.
I was going to comment about not arguing with flat-earthers, but in
this case you just provided an example of what you asked me for. There
are tons of others.
I believe that you believe as deeply as they do. That amazes me.
Bill C
|
| |
Date: 24 Sep 2007 18:27:42
From: amit.ghosh@gmail.com
Subject: Re: The moment of truth for Valverde - a DNA Test !
|
On Sep 22, 7:18 pm, Ryan Cousineau <rcous...@sfu.ca > wrote:
> In the new world order, the UCI saw itself as the creator of the
> ProTour, with the right to decide both what teams were in the ProTour,
> and what races were in the ProTour (including a few events that were
> created for the ProTour, like that standalone TTT).
this is actually a revival of an old event. it was always in eindhoven
though i can't remember what it used to be called.
the concept of a protour is probably good for the prosperity of the
parties that will be involved, but the UCI made the mistake of drawing
up the plans and trying to force the organizers to go along with it.
but it is the organizers that have built up the financial backing and
resources to put on major events, so they were rightfully indignant at
the UCI trying to call the shots.
they made their point by excluding Unibet from their events and the
UCI was toothless. they didn't remove the UCI sanction from Paris-NIce
or any of the other ASO events like they threatened to and Unibet got
completely shafted.
|
| | |
Date: 24 Sep 2007 21:21:24
From: Ewoud Dronkert
Subject: Re: The moment of truth for Valverde - a DNA Test !
|
amit.ghosh@gmail.com schreef:
> On Sep 22, 7:18 pm, Ryan Cousineau <rcous...@sfu.ca> wrote:
>> created for the ProTour, like that standalone TTT).
>
> this is actually a revival of an old event. it was always in eindhoven
> though i can't remember what it used to be called.
I don't know. Never heard of it and can't find any history of a TTT in
Eindhoven before 2005.
--
E. Dronkert
|
| |
Date: 24 Sep 2007 04:55:24
From: amit.ghosh@gmail.com
Subject: Re: The moment of truth for Valverde - a DNA Test !
|
On Sep 23, 7:23 pm, Bill C <tritonri...@verizon.net > wrote:
> Please explain tome where the riders have any, real, effective voice
> in structuring the sport?
> You
> seem to have a problem with this, and you seem to think that the UCI
> is looking out for the best interests of the workers. That's
> laughable.
dumbass,
a casual observer like you apparently cannot differentiate between the
different bodies (WADA,UCI, ASO) and what they do or have done
historically.
your thought process is something like "the UCI is like the
governement, therefore it must be bad".
find me ONE INSTANCE prior to 2007 where the UCI acted against the
interest of a rider that did not test positive or otherwise be
implicated in a doping scandal.
the UCI has always been on the side of riders, and that is why WADA
was created, because they felt the gov. bodies would not police
themselves. which is true - why would be UCI want to suspend it's own
riders and hurt the image of the sport ?
but it is also the UCI's job to enforce the rules and it is only VERY
RECENTLY that the UCI has been proactive in trying to catch dopers -
deserved or not - eg.rasmussen, the expanded out-of-competition tests
and now valverde.
in the past the UCI only acted when it was forced to because of a
positive test or some scandal (eg. police raids). in fact the gov.
bodies cleared ullrich and basso (actually all the puerto riders) to
race this year and it was only because of some external investigation
that their cases were pursued leading to their suspension.
but the UCI doesn't exist in a vacuum. they are bound by the WADA code
and if the police or the LNDD or an ADA informs them that an athlete
is guilty of cheating they are obliged to act on it.
|
| | |
Date: 24 Sep 2007 00:57:25
From: Carl Sundquist
Subject: Re: The moment of truth for Valverde - a DNA Test !
|
<amit.ghosh@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:1190609724.410347.11970@y42g2000hsy.googlegroups.com...
> On Sep 23, 7:23 pm, Bill C <tritonri...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>> Please explain tome where the riders have any, real, effective voice
>> in structuring the sport?
>
>> You
>> seem to have a problem with this, and you seem to think that the UCI
>> is looking out for the best interests of the workers. That's
>> laughable.
>
> dumbass,
>
> a casual observer like you apparently cannot differentiate between the
> different bodies (WADA,UCI, ASO) and what they do or have done
> historically.
>
> your thought process is something like "the UCI is like the
> governement, therefore it must be bad".
>
> find me ONE INSTANCE prior to 2007 where the UCI acted against the
> interest of a rider that did not test positive or otherwise be
> implicated in a doping scandal.
>
Dumbass,
Not related to doping, but the easy answer is Obree. Not just once, but
twice.
|
| |
Date: 23 Sep 2007 16:23:39
From: Bill C
Subject: Re: The moment of truth for Valverde - a DNA Test !
|
On Sep 22, 2:45 pm, "amit.gh...@gmail.com" <amit.gh...@gmail.com >
wrote:
> On Sep 22, 3:26 am, "b...@mambo.ucolick.org" <b...@mambo.ucolick.org>
>
> > > probably almost every steelworker who is in a union benefits from it,
> > > that is not true of every pro athlete in a union.
>
> > I disagree. I haven't looked, but it is likely that minimum
> > salaries and other protections didn't exist or were very low
> > before players' unions.
>
> dumbass,
>
> My point is still correct, the collective agreements in pro sports
> aren't better for every player, they mostly benefit the owners. Salary
> caps and free agency rules are in place so that teams aren't forced to
> outbid each other for the stars.
>
> > None of this is to suggest that a pro cyclists' union is a
> > panacea. For one thing, the situation is more analogous
> > to soccer and FIFA than to any of the North American
> > leagues. Even then, the fact that teams do not have fixed
> > stadia or franchises makes comparisons difficult.
>
> That's irrelevant, esp. if revenue is from sponsors and TV. The main
> difference is that the teams aren't connected to the revenue that the
> races generate. The teams depend on being invited to races to survive
> and the ASO feels no obligation to hand a chunk of it's revenue over
> to the teams.
>
> By the way, cycling does have a union, the UCI has rules which govern
> all the disciplinary procedures and even has guidelines for salaries.
Please explain tome where the riders have any, real, effective voice
in structuring the sport? You really do sound like Greg arguing that
the Robber Barons were perfectly right to exploit everyone and
everything becausae the people had the "union" of political
representation.
I'm not a huge union guy, and am usually anti-union for the
aforementioned issues of productivity and competition. US unions
really helped drive the move to offshoring things IMO, but they are
about the only way for workers, whether they be contract or wage to
protect themselves from predatory practices when the law won't. You
seem to have a problem with this, and you seem to think that the UCI
is looking out for the best interests of the workers. That's
laughable.
Unions don't solve everything, but they at least give the peopleon the
bottom end of the scale a chance to protect themselves when noone else
will, and improve conditions to a decent minimum standard.
I can't believe I need to argue an early 20th century obvious truth
with an educated human being in the 21st. It's just proof that
education doesn't make people better, just gives them more information
to use.
Dude unless your Islamic and fundamentalist, running a Nike
sweatshop, or a Chinese slave labor factory "overlord" positions are
out of style pretty much. Guess you can have dreams though.
Bill C
|
| |
Date: 22 Sep 2007 20:43:03
From: amit.ghosh@gmail.com
Subject: Re: The moment of truth for Valverde - a DNA Test !
|
On Sep 22, 3:35 pm, Ryan Cousineau <rcous...@sfu.ca > wrote:
> The problem is that the UCI, whose job was previously to print rainbow
> jerseys, ban recumbents, and hand out those charmingly retro SFr fines,
> has suddenly taken it upon itself to become organizer of the business
> end of cycling (let's call this the "Ecclestone gambit.")
dumbass,
that is not at all true. the UCI has not stepped up the organize
anything - even the world championships. on the other hand, the ASO is
in the perfect position to become the ecclestone of cycling.
as you may know we are putting on two UCI 'cross events this year, the
UCI (or any gov. body) provides us with : a sanction, race insurance
and officials, and bills us for it. we do the heavy lifting and any
loss we incur is ours to bear.
so it's not reasonable the UCI or the teams to expect a part of the
revenue we generate.
|
| | |
Date: 22 Sep 2007 23:18:21
From: Ryan Cousineau
Subject: Re: The moment of truth for Valverde - a DNA Test !
|
In article <1190493783.118352.214870@n39g2000hsh.googlegroups.com >,
"amit.ghosh@gmail.com" <amit.ghosh@gmail.com > wrote:
> On Sep 22, 3:35 pm, Ryan Cousineau <rcous...@sfu.ca> wrote:
>
> > The problem is that the UCI, whose job was previously to print rainbow
> > jerseys, ban recumbents, and hand out those charmingly retro SFr fines,
> > has suddenly taken it upon itself to become organizer of the business
> > end of cycling (let's call this the "Ecclestone gambit.")
>
> dumbass,
>
> that is not at all true. the UCI has not stepped up the organize
> anything - even the world championships. on the other hand, the ASO is
> in the perfect position to become the ecclestone of cycling.
Indeed. The thing about Ecclestone is that he basically doesn't own
anything, except the entirety of F1. In fairness to him, as rich as he
has become by being the reigning king of F1, he's also made a lot of
money for the race teams.
The tracks? Not so much.
> as you may know we are putting on two UCI 'cross events this year, the
> UCI (or any gov. body) provides us with : a sanction, race insurance
> and officials, and bills us for it. we do the heavy lifting and any
> loss we incur is ours to bear.
In the new world order, the UCI saw itself as the creator of the
ProTour, with the right to decide both what teams were in the ProTour,
and what races were in the ProTour (including a few events that were
created for the ProTour, like that standalone TTT).
> so it's not reasonable the UCI or the teams to expect a part of the
> revenue we generate.
I'm not saying it is reasonable. I'm saying they are trying to be the
"owners" of the elite end of pro cycling, by dictating which races the
top teams race in, and which teams can be in the top races.
--
Ryan Cousineau rcousine@sfu.ca http://www.wiredcola.com/
"I don't want kids who are thinking about going into mathematics
to think that they have to take drugs to succeed." -Paul Erdos
|
| |
Date: 22 Sep 2007 18:45:52
From: amit.ghosh@gmail.com
Subject: Re: The moment of truth for Valverde - a DNA Test !
|
On Sep 22, 3:26 am, "b...@mambo.ucolick.org" <b...@mambo.ucolick.org >
> > probably almost every steelworker who is in a union benefits from it,
> > that is not true of every pro athlete in a union.
>
> I disagree. I haven't looked, but it is likely that minimum
> salaries and other protections didn't exist or were very low
> before players' unions.
dumbass,
My point is still correct, the collective agreements in pro sports
aren't better for every player, they mostly benefit the owners. Salary
caps and free agency rules are in place so that teams aren't forced to
outbid each other for the stars.
> None of this is to suggest that a pro cyclists' union is a
> panacea. For one thing, the situation is more analogous
> to soccer and FIFA than to any of the North American
> leagues. Even then, the fact that teams do not have fixed
> stadia or franchises makes comparisons difficult.
That's irrelevant, esp. if revenue is from sponsors and TV. The main
difference is that the teams aren't connected to the revenue that the
races generate. The teams depend on being invited to races to survive
and the ASO feels no obligation to hand a chunk of it's revenue over
to the teams.
By the way, cycling does have a union, the UCI has rules which govern
all the disciplinary procedures and even has guidelines for salaries.
|
| |
Date: 22 Sep 2007 07:26:45
From: bjw@mambo.ucolick.org
Subject: Re: The moment of truth for Valverde - a DNA Test !
|
On Sep 21, 7:28 pm, "amit.gh...@gmail.com" <amit.gh...@gmail.com >
wrote:
> why not ? (though I do see the second item guarantees a min. level of
> revenue sharing) the point is there is a cap, which implies that some
> players will make less than if there wasn't.
Dumbass,
I think the cap limits the salaries of superstars more than it
limits the salaries of journeymen. Rosters have a limited
number of players; doubling a journeyman's salary makes
an insignificant cap hit compared to negotiating the franchise
player's incentives.
> > Indeed, most steel mills don't have this kind of profit-sharing, do they?
>
> probably almost every steelworker who is in a union benefits from it,
> that is not true of every pro athlete in a union.
I disagree. I haven't looked, but it is likely that minimum
salaries and other protections didn't exist or were very low
before players' unions. There are a variety of other things,
like free agency, that probably also are associated with
players' unions (admittedly, also with court decisions, in
the case of baseball). Pro athletes used to all take part time
jobs in the off season. Much of the increased money is due to
TV rights, but it is likely that the sharing of that money is due
to the players' associations.
None of this is to suggest that a pro cyclists' union is a
panacea. For one thing, the situation is more analogous
to soccer and FIFA than to any of the North American
leagues. Even then, the fact that teams do not have fixed
stadia or franchises makes comparisons difficult.
Ben
|
| | |
Date: 22 Sep 2007 19:35:04
From: Ryan Cousineau
Subject: Re: The moment of truth for Valverde - a DNA Test !
|
In article <1190446005.570566.253960@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com >,
"bjw@mambo.ucolick.org" <bjw@mambo.ucolick.org > wrote:
> On Sep 21, 7:28 pm, "amit.gh...@gmail.com" <amit.gh...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > why not ? (though I do see the second item guarantees a min. level of
> > revenue sharing) the point is there is a cap, which implies that some
> > players will make less than if there wasn't.
>
> Dumbass,
>
> I think the cap limits the salaries of superstars more than it
> limits the salaries of journeymen. Rosters have a limited
> number of players; doubling a journeyman's salary makes
> an insignificant cap hit compared to negotiating the franchise
> player's incentives.
>
> > > Indeed, most steel mills don't have this kind of profit-sharing, do they?
> >
> > probably almost every steelworker who is in a union benefits from it,
> > that is not true of every pro athlete in a union.
>
> I disagree. I haven't looked, but it is likely that minimum
> salaries and other protections didn't exist or were very low
> before players' unions. There are a variety of other things,
> like free agency, that probably also are associated with
> players' unions (admittedly, also with court decisions, in
> the case of baseball). Pro athletes used to all take part time
> jobs in the off season. Much of the increased money is due to
> TV rights, but it is likely that the sharing of that money is due
> to the players' associations.
The amount of money in pro sports has grown hugely, and player salaries
have grown along with that.
One driver of salaries at various times have been rival leagues (World
Hockey Association, AFL, the "useful" USFL...) which have driven up
salaries as they competed for players. Indeed, in most cases these
leagues had a business opportunity because they saw a chance to buy up
the undercompensated talent from the senior league.
And yeah, TV has figured hugely in the growth of pro sport.
I think player's associations probably helped players, on balance, but
without the massive growth in popularity of sports (which I think has no
relation to the existence of player unions), the unions would be, at
best, ensuring revenue-sharing from a pot of money so small that the
players would be taking off-season jobs (see: professional lacrosse).
> None of this is to suggest that a pro cyclists' union is a
> panacea. For one thing, the situation is more analogous
> to soccer and FIFA than to any of the North American
> leagues. Even then, the fact that teams do not have fixed
> stadia or franchises makes comparisons difficult.
It's weirder than that. If you look at the NFL, or MLB, or (I'm
assuming?) Premier-league soccer, the governing bodies are essentially a
federation of the team owners. The team owners choose the executives,
and so forth. The teams also have "ownership" (more or less) of the
venues, and they hire the players.
In cycling, the UCI is essentially, to the extent it is responsible to
anyone, beholden only to national federations, all of whom have
virtually no relationship with the teams or the event creators. The ASO
is not really of the UCI, but neither is Tailwind, Slipstream, or any
other team.
Oh yeah: and most big events don't charge admission.
So revenue for the events is generated from TV rights and sponsorship
deals. Revenue for teams is generated from sponsorship deals. There
seems to be an unimportant amount of revenue flow between event
organizers and race teams, though in the lower divisions (Continental
etc.) start money can be a big draw, and prize money is a significant
source of salary for some ProTour riders.
Hopefully, someone will correct the parts I got wrong.
The problem is that the UCI, whose job was previously to print rainbow
jerseys, ban recumbents, and hand out those charmingly retro SFr fines,
has suddenly taken it upon itself to become organizer of the business
end of cycling (let's call this the "Ecclestone gambit.")
I don't think it's likely to end well, especially since the UCI, WADA,
and the event organizers all (while being quite sincere about wanting
cycling to be a clean sport) seem to be using doping issues as a blunt
weapon to be wielded against their enemies (who are, of course, the UCI,
WADA and the event organizers. I'm not sure dopers or dope doctors are
any more than collateral damage at this point).
--
Ryan Cousineau rcousine@sfu.ca http://www.wiredcola.com/
"I don't want kids who are thinking about going into mathematics
to think that they have to take drugs to succeed." -Paul Erdos
|
| |
Date: 22 Sep 2007 02:28:48
From: amit.ghosh@gmail.com
Subject: Re: The moment of truth for Valverde - a DNA Test !
|
On Sep 21, 9:45 pm, Ryan Cousineau <rcous...@sfu.ca > wrote:
> In article <1190422677.753683.185...@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
>
>
>
> "amit.gh...@gmail.com" <amit.gh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Sep 20, 4:05 pm, Bill C <tritonri...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> > > Right after worlds the riders need to go on strike and form a decent
> > > union, and refuse to ride until they collectively bargain a fair,
> > > transparent, honest system, with the protections guaranteed by EU law.
>
> > moron,
>
> > when will you stop yammering about a rider union like it's supposed to
> > be a panacea ?
>
> > if cyclists have a union it's the UCI.
>
> > pro cycling is not a steelmill, it's not even the NFL. riders aren't
> > employed by the UCI or even the ASO. steelworkers and most pro-
> > athletes work for the entity that actually generates revenue. that's
> > not the case in cycling.
>
> > this is besides the fact that in most pro sports the collective
> > agreements are designed to to benefit the owners - eg. salary caps are
> > the main feature. in the NFL contracts aren't even guaranteed !
>
> > they can get away with this because the supply of skilled players far
> > exceeds the demand.
>
> They get away with it because the payouts to the players under the new
> owner-friendly contract regime have been fabulous.
>
> Note that under the current scheme, a huge amount of the net revenue
> from football (57%) goes to player salaries.
>
> This means that players have a big stake in the popularity of the game,
> as do owners.
>
> http://www.askthecommish.com/salarycap/faq.asp
>
> As a result, salaries have skyrocketed in lockstep with the increasing
> profitability of the NFL. It's hard to argue that things would have
> gotten even better in an un-capped league.
dumbass,
why not ? (though I do see the second item guarantees a min. level of
revenue sharing) the point is there is a cap, which implies that some
players will make less than if there wasn't.
> Indeed, most steel mills don't have this kind of profit-sharing, do they?
probably almost every steelworker who is in a union benefits from it,
that is not true of every pro athlete in a union.
|
| | |
Date: 22 Sep 2007 04:44:05
From: Ryan Cousineau
Subject: Re: The moment of truth for Valverde - a DNA Test !
|
In article <1190428128.830650.216140@o80g2000hse.googlegroups.com >,
"amit.ghosh@gmail.com" <amit.ghosh@gmail.com > wrote:
> On Sep 21, 9:45 pm, Ryan Cousineau <rcous...@sfu.ca> wrote:
> > In article <1190422677.753683.185...@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
> >
> >
> >
> > "amit.gh...@gmail.com" <amit.gh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Sep 20, 4:05 pm, Bill C <tritonri...@verizon.net> wrote:
> >
> > > > Right after worlds the riders need to go on strike and form a decent
> > > > union, and refuse to ride until they collectively bargain a fair,
> > > > transparent, honest system, with the protections guaranteed by EU law.
> >
> > > moron,
> >
> > > when will you stop yammering about a rider union like it's supposed to
> > > be a panacea ?
> >
> > > if cyclists have a union it's the UCI.
> >
> > > pro cycling is not a steelmill, it's not even the NFL. riders aren't
> > > employed by the UCI or even the ASO. steelworkers and most pro-
> > > athletes work for the entity that actually generates revenue. that's
> > > not the case in cycling.
> >
> > > this is besides the fact that in most pro sports the collective
> > > agreements are designed to to benefit the owners - eg. salary caps are
> > > the main feature. in the NFL contracts aren't even guaranteed !
> >
> > > they can get away with this because the supply of skilled players far
> > > exceeds the demand.
> >
> > They get away with it because the payouts to the players under the new
> > owner-friendly contract regime have been fabulous.
> >
> > Note that under the current scheme, a huge amount of the net revenue
> > from football (57%) goes to player salaries.
> >
> > This means that players have a big stake in the popularity of the game,
> > as do owners.
> >
> > http://www.askthecommish.com/salarycap/faq.asp
> >
> > As a result, salaries have skyrocketed in lockstep with the increasing
> > profitability of the NFL. It's hard to argue that things would have
> > gotten even better in an un-capped league.
>
> dumbass,
>
> why not ? (though I do see the second item guarantees a min. level of
> revenue sharing) the point is there is a cap, which implies that some
> players will make less than if there wasn't.
Dumbass: maybe not. I strongly suspect that capping has a useful effect
on league parity, and I strongly suspect that league parity has a useful
effect on league popularity.
The stats on that aren't perfect, in terms of proving there's a
substantial change in parity in the post-cap NFL versus pre-cap, but I'm
swayed by the argument that the differences in individual team revenues
would have gotten worse had the cap not been in place.
There's also the element that non-guaranteed contracts mean that
underperforming players can be kicked to the curb without the scary
cap-crunch effects (or simple pointless drag on the bottom line) that
guaranteed-contract leagues see. This means the best players are always
on the field, not the best players money could buy last year.
If you look at the MLB, where the Yankees basically damn the cap
penalties and buy whatever they want, there's few teams that can even
try to compete with that model (and I'd argue that only some very smart
money keeps it from being even more successful). Good for NYY, bad for
other teams trying to convince their fans and their other players that
they're serious about winning the World Series.
The NBA has another interesting problem in spades, which is that with so
few players on the team, three or four really good players can switch a
team from bad to great. Since NBA stars like to win championships, you
can even see players accumulating on teams against their best financial
interests, to win a championship. Which means that talent aggregates,
and sucky teams suck a lot.
Which does nothing to explain the Detroit Lions, of course.
> > Indeed, most steel mills don't have this kind of profit-sharing, do they?
>
> probably almost every steelworker who is in a union benefits from it,
> that is not true of every pro athlete in a union.
First order versus second order effects. If being in the UAW means your
job pays well, that's great. But if working to UAW contract rules means
your production line becomes unprofitable, that's bad. I note that
neither Toyota nor its American line-workers have shown a whole bunch of
interest in unionization, for some reason.
--
Ryan Cousineau rcousine@sfu.ca http://www.wiredcola.com/
"I don't want kids who are thinking about going into mathematics
to think that they have to take drugs to succeed." -Paul Erdos
|
| | | |
Date: 22 Sep 2007 23:45:17
From: Michael Press
Subject: Re: The moment of truth for Valverde - a DNA Test !
|
In article
<rcousine-300CAD.21440521092007@news.telus.net >,
Ryan Cousineau <rcousine@sfu.ca > wrote:
> In article <1190428128.830650.216140@o80g2000hse.googlegroups.com>,
> "amit.ghosh@gmail.com" <amit.ghosh@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Sep 21, 9:45 pm, Ryan Cousineau <rcous...@sfu.ca> wrote:
> > > In article <1190422677.753683.185...@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > "amit.gh...@gmail.com" <amit.gh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > On Sep 20, 4:05 pm, Bill C <tritonri...@verizon.net> wrote:
> > >
> > > > > Right after worlds the riders need to go on strike and form a decent
> > > > > union, and refuse to ride until they collectively bargain a fair,
> > > > > transparent, honest system, with the protections guaranteed by EU law.
> > >
> > > > moron,
> > >
> > > > when will you stop yammering about a rider union like it's supposed to
> > > > be a panacea ?
> > >
> > > > if cyclists have a union it's the UCI.
> > >
> > > > pro cycling is not a steelmill, it's not even the NFL. riders aren't
> > > > employed by the UCI or even the ASO. steelworkers and most pro-
> > > > athletes work for the entity that actually generates revenue. that's
> > > > not the case in cycling.
> > >
> > > > this is besides the fact that in most pro sports the collective
> > > > agreements are designed to to benefit the owners - eg. salary caps are
> > > > the main feature. in the NFL contracts aren't even guaranteed !
> > >
> > > > they can get away with this because the supply of skilled players far
> > > > exceeds the demand.
> > >
> > > They get away with it because the payouts to the players under the new
> > > owner-friendly contract regime have been fabulous.
> > >
> > > Note that under the current scheme, a huge amount of the net revenue
> > > from football (57%) goes to player salaries.
> > >
> > > This means that players have a big stake in the popularity of the game,
> > > as do owners.
> > >
> > > http://www.askthecommish.com/salarycap/faq.asp
> > >
> > > As a result, salaries have skyrocketed in lockstep with the increasing
> > > profitability of the NFL. It's hard to argue that things would have
> > > gotten even better in an un-capped league.
> >
> > dumbass,
> >
> > why not ? (though I do see the second item guarantees a min. level of
> > revenue sharing) the point is there is a cap, which implies that some
> > players will make less than if there wasn't.
>
> Dumbass: maybe not. I strongly suspect that capping has a useful effect
> on league parity, and I strongly suspect that league parity has a useful
> effect on league popularity.
>
> The stats on that aren't perfect, in terms of proving there's a
> substantial change in parity in the post-cap NFL versus pre-cap, but I'm
> swayed by the argument that the differences in individual team revenues
> would have gotten worse had the cap not been in place.
>
> There's also the element that non-guaranteed contracts mean that
> underperforming players can be kicked to the curb without the scary
> cap-crunch effects (or simple pointless drag on the bottom line) that
> guaranteed-contract leagues see. This means the best players are always
> on the field, not the best players money could buy last year.
>
> If you look at the MLB, where the Yankees basically damn the cap
> penalties and buy whatever they want, there's few teams that can even
> try to compete with that model (and I'd argue that only some very smart
> money keeps it from being even more successful). Good for NYY, bad for
> other teams trying to convince their fans and their other players that
> they're serious about winning the World Series.
>
> The NBA has another interesting problem in spades, which is that with so
> few players on the team, three or four really good players can switch a
> team from bad to great. Since NBA stars like to win championships, you
> can even see players accumulating on teams against their best financial
> interests, to win a championship. Which means that talent aggregates,
> and sucky teams suck a lot.
>
> Which does nothing to explain the Detroit Lions, of course.
>
> > > Indeed, most steel mills don't have this kind of profit-sharing, do they?
> >
> > probably almost every steelworker who is in a union benefits from it,
> > that is not true of every pro athlete in a union.
>
> First order versus second order effects. If being in the UAW means your
> job pays well, that's great. But if working to UAW contract rules means
> your production line becomes unprofitable, that's bad. I note that
> neither Toyota nor its American line-workers have shown a whole bunch of
> interest in unionization, for some reason.
I am against the salary cap because I enjoy watching a
smart owner put together a dynasty and enjoy even more
watching the team play every other day or every week.
Parity is for special olympics. In the big leagues it
is an excuse for incompetence. I enjoy watching a good
team eviscerate the opposition.
--
Michael Press
|
| | | | |
Date: 23 Sep 2007 16:25:01
From: Ryan Cousineau
Subject: Re: The moment of truth for Valverde - a DNA Test !
|
In article <rubrum-802578.23451722092007@newsclstr03.news.prodigy.net >,
Michael Press <rubrum@pacbell.net > wrote:
> In article
> <rcousine-300CAD.21440521092007@news.telus.net>,
> Ryan Cousineau <rcousine@sfu.ca> wrote:
>
> > Dumbass: maybe not. I strongly suspect that capping has a useful effect
> > on league parity, and I strongly suspect that league parity has a useful
> > effect on league popularity.
> >
> > The stats on that aren't perfect, in terms of proving there's a
> > substantial change in parity in the post-cap NFL versus pre-cap, but I'm
> > swayed by the argument that the differences in individual team revenues
> > would have gotten worse had the cap not been in place.
>
> I am against the salary cap because I enjoy watching a
> smart owner put together a dynasty and enjoy even more
> watching the team play every other day or every week.
> Parity is for special olympics. In the big leagues it
> is an excuse for incompetence. I enjoy watching a good
> team eviscerate the opposition.
Dumbass:
How many more football-shaped trophies will the Pats have to win this
decade before they are satisfactorily dynastic for you?
--
Ryan Cousineau rcousine@sfu.ca http://www.wiredcola.com/
"I don't want kids who are thinking about going into mathematics
to think that they have to take drugs to succeed." -Paul Erdos
|
| | | | | |
Date: 23 Sep 2007 23:03:12
From: Michael Press
Subject: Re: The moment of truth for Valverde - a DNA Test !
|
In article
<rcousine-234153.09250123092007@news.telus.net >,
Ryan Cousineau <rcousine@sfu.ca > wrote:
> In article <rubrum-802578.23451722092007@newsclstr03.news.prodigy.net>,
> Michael Press <rubrum@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
> > In article
> > <rcousine-300CAD.21440521092007@news.telus.net>,
> > Ryan Cousineau <rcousine@sfu.ca> wrote:
> >
> > > Dumbass: maybe not. I strongly suspect that capping has a useful effect
> > > on league parity, and I strongly suspect that league parity has a useful
> > > effect on league popularity.
> > >
> > > The stats on that aren't perfect, in terms of proving there's a
> > > substantial change in parity in the post-cap NFL versus pre-cap, but I'm
> > > swayed by the argument that the differences in individual team revenues
> > > would have gotten worse had the cap not been in place.
> >
> > I am against the salary cap because I enjoy watching a
> > smart owner put together a dynasty and enjoy even more
> > watching the team play every other day or every week.
> > Parity is for special olympics. In the big leagues it
> > is an excuse for incompetence. I enjoy watching a good
> > team eviscerate the opposition.
>
> Dumbass:
>
> How many more football-shaped trophies will the Pats have to win this
> decade before they are satisfactorily dynastic for you?
It's never enough.
--
Michael Press
|
| |
Date: 22 Sep 2007 00:57:57
From: amit.ghosh@gmail.com
Subject: Re: The moment of truth for Valverde - a DNA Test !
|
On Sep 20, 4:05 pm, Bill C <tritonri...@verizon.net > wrote:
> Right after worlds the riders need to go on strike and form a decent
> union, and refuse to ride until they collectively bargain a fair,
> transparent, honest system, with the protections guaranteed by EU law.
moron,
when will you stop yammering about a rider union like it's supposed to
be a panacea ?
if cyclists have a union it's the UCI.
pro cycling is not a steelmill, it's not even the NFL. riders aren't
employed by the UCI or even the ASO. steelworkers and most pro-
athletes work for the entity that actually generates revenue. that's
not the case in cycling.
this is besides the fact that in most pro sports the collective
agreements are designed to to benefit the owners - eg. salary caps are
the main feature. in the NFL contracts aren't even guaranteed !
they can get away with this because the supply of skilled players far
exceeds the demand.
notice how there's no salary caps for lawyers or CEOs or hedge-fund
managers ?
|
| | |
Date: 22 Sep 2007 01:45:00
From: Ryan Cousineau
Subject: Re: The moment of truth for Valverde - a DNA Test !
|
In article <1190422677.753683.185240@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com >,
"amit.ghosh@gmail.com" <amit.ghosh@gmail.com > wrote:
> On Sep 20, 4:05 pm, Bill C <tritonri...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> > Right after worlds the riders need to go on strike and form a decent
> > union, and refuse to ride until they collectively bargain a fair,
> > transparent, honest system, with the protections guaranteed by EU law.
>
> moron,
>
> when will you stop yammering about a rider union like it's supposed to
> be a panacea ?
>
> if cyclists have a union it's the UCI.
>
> pro cycling is not a steelmill, it's not even the NFL. riders aren't
> employed by the UCI or even the ASO. steelworkers and most pro-
> athletes work for the entity that actually generates revenue. that's
> not the case in cycling.
>
> this is besides the fact that in most pro sports the collective
> agreements are designed to to benefit the owners - eg. salary caps are
> the main feature. in the NFL contracts aren't even guaranteed !
>
> they can get away with this because the supply of skilled players far
> exceeds the demand.
They get away with it because the payouts to the players under the new
owner-friendly contract regime have been fabulous.
Note that under the current scheme, a huge amount of the net revenue
from football (57%) goes to player salaries.
This means that players have a big stake in the popularity of the game,
as do owners.
http://www.askthecommish.com/salarycap/faq.asp
As a result, salaries have skyrocketed in lockstep with the increasing
profitability of the NFL. It's hard to argue that things would have
gotten even better in an un-capped league.
Indeed, most steel mills don't have this kind of profit-sharing, do they?
--
Ryan Cousineau rcousine@sfu.ca http://www.wiredcola.com/
"I don't want kids who are thinking about going into mathematics
to think that they have to take drugs to succeed." -Paul Erdos
|
| | | |
Date: 21 Sep 2007 20:40:55
From: Howard Kveck
Subject: Re: The moment of truth for Valverde - a DNA Test !
|
In article <rcousine-CD3151.18445321092007@news.telus.net >,
Ryan Cousineau <rcousine@sfu.ca > wrote:
> Indeed, most steel mills don't have this kind of profit-sharing, do they?
Sure they do, if by "most" you mean "none." While some companies in trades like
steelwork may have a profit sharing arrangement, it's going to be a very small one
indeed. That's because it's a very different sort of labor circumstance: while it is
in the steelworker's interests to make his company more popular, he doesn't have the
ability to do that like a pro ball player does.
--
tanx,
Howard
Faberge eggs are elegant but I prefer Faberge bacon.
remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?
|
| |
Date: 21 Sep 2007 12:48:27
From: Bill C
Subject: Re: The moment of truth for Valverde - a DNA Test !
|
On Sep 21, 12:47 pm, Michael Press <rub...@pacbell.net > wrote:
> In article
> <1190328706.697301.179...@w3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
> Bill C <tritonri...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> > On Sep 20, 6:33 pm, "Frank Drackman" <frankdr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Right after worlds the riders need to go on strike and form a decent
> > > > union, and refuse to ride until they collectively bargain a fair,
> > > > transparent, honest system, with the protections guaranteed by EU law.
> > > > Bill C quoted text -
>
> > What I don't understand, and I think I understand what Sandy has said,
> > is that those contracts and a lot of the Wada/UCI stuff violates EU
> > labor law, at a minimum, and other things. I don't understand how any
> > agreement that's in violation of the law can be considered binding and
> > legal.
>
> Sandy also said that getting the EU laws enforced in court
> will take a year or more out of the rider's life and pocket.
>
> --
> Michael Press
"Justice" is always more equal for those with the money to buy it,
isn't it?
Bill C
|
| |
Date: 20 Sep 2007 17:44:52
From: Bill C
Subject: Re: The moment of truth for Valverde - a DNA Test !
|
On Sep 20, 8:33 pm, "Frank Drackman" <frankdr...@yahoo.com > wrote:
>
>
> OK, if it does why didn't Valverde fight to get it removed?
>
> I believe that the answer is that he wanted his. His money, his fame, his
> endorsements, his lifestyle. Now as an accused doper he has very little
> leverage.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Sandy has mentioned that there is little to no sympathy for the
riders, as they are seen as spoiled, rich types by the public. I asked
him the same question, pretty much, a while ago and, as I remember he
said that the courts, etc...just couldn't be bothered with any of
this.
Bill C
|
| | |
Date: 21 Sep 2007 06:47:35
From: Frank Drackman
Subject: Re: The moment of truth for Valverde - a DNA Test !
|
"Bill C" <tritonrider@verizon.net > wrote in message
news:1190335492.404252.218980@y42g2000hsy.googlegroups.com...
> On Sep 20, 8:33 pm, "Frank Drackman" <frankdr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> OK, if it does why didn't Valverde fight to get it removed?
>>
>> I believe that the answer is that he wanted his. His money, his fame,
>> his
>> endorsements, his lifestyle. Now as an accused doper he has very little
>> leverage.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> Sandy has mentioned that there is little to no sympathy for the
> riders, as they are seen as spoiled, rich types by the public. I asked
> him the same question, pretty much, a while ago and, as I remember he
> said that the courts, etc...just couldn't be bothered with any of
> this.
> Bill C
>
The funny things is that most of the riders are not close to being rich.
Most seem to come from low income families and work for close to the UCI
minimum salary. It seems that there are just enough riders making a huge
salary to dangle the carrot of making it to the next level, and becoming
rich, that the system keeps working without a rider revolt.
Valverde was in the perfect position before he signed the contract to switch
to from Kelme to Illes Balears to try to change the system.
|
| | | |
Date: 24 Sep 2007 20:20:51
From: Tom Kunich
Subject: Re: The moment of truth for Valverde - a DNA Test !
|
"Frank Drackman" <frankdrack@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:4KqdnSh-S5z1Vm7bnZ2dnUVZ_qygnZ2d@comcast.com...
>
> The funny things is that most of the riders are not close to being rich.
Floyd Landis hardly made enough to be considered a good payday for a lower
end major league baseball player. Most of the peloton are paid so little
that it verges on slavery in the USA.
|
| |
Date: 20 Sep 2007 17:41:05
From: Bill C
Subject: Re: The moment of truth for Valverde - a DNA Test !
|
On Sep 20, 8:13 pm, Keith <nos...@nospam.com > wrote:
> >> Well there he has a chance to prove himself innocent, but honestly who
> >> believes that it isn't HIS blood in the "Valv Piti" bags, come on...
>
> >Cool. I'm gonna tell the whole internet that you're a child molesting
> >scumbag, and you can try and prove you aren't, fair enough?
> >Bill C
>
> Why not, but you know exactly what I mean, why on earth would a Puerto
> bag be labelled"Vilv Piti" if it wasn't his and hey, he can prove it's
> not by taking a DNA test, where's the problem. If I had to take a DNA
> test to save my ass I'd do it.
>
> Since day one the Spaniards have done all they could to protect him, I
> always found it suspicious that they would specify that HE was not in
> the list when the whole thing started.
He may very well be guilty, but the system is flat out broken. I take
the same position as I did on the first OJ trial. He was guilty as
hell IMO but the LAPD was so corrupt and incompetent that he had to be
allowed to walk. I feel the same way about Wada and LNDD.
I'm not giving up a single damned right, or protection voluntarily,
especially to a corrupt/incompetent governing body. Ben Franklin,
since this is rbr:
Benjamin Franklin:
They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security,
deserve neither liberty or security.
Samuel Adams:
If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude
greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in
peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick
the hand that feeds you; and may posterity forget that ye were our
countrymen.
Bill C
|
| |
Date: 20 Sep 2007 17:10:27
From: Bill C
Subject: Re: The moment of truth for Valverde - a DNA Test !
|
On Sep 20, 8:00 pm, Keith <nos...@nospam.com > wrote:
> On Thu, 20 Sep 2007 13:05:12 -0700, Bill C <tritonri...@verizon.net>
> wrote:
>
> >On Sep 20, 12:02 pm, Keith <nos...@nospam.com> wrote:
> >> Wonder why McQuaid waited until now to pull that trump card, my money
> >> says Valverde refuses to have DNA tested invoking legal rights,
> >> freedom, etc...
>
> >>http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2007/sep07/sep20news2&fro...
>
> >I remember reading somewhere that he said exactly that. He didn't feel
> >that he should have to give up his rights to prove himself innocent
> >when his own federation and government have said there's nothing to
> >the charges. Once again "Guilty as hell and a cheating scumbag", until
> >they can prove themselves innocent.
>
> Well there he has a chance to prove himself innocent, but honestly who
> believes that it isn't HIS blood in the "Valv Piti" bags, come on...
Cool. I'm gonna tell the whole internet that you're a child molesting
scumbag, and you can try and prove you aren't, fair enough?
Bill C
|
| | |
Date: 21 Sep 2007 02:13:53
From: Keith
Subject: Re: The moment of truth for Valverde - a DNA Test !
|
>> Well there he has a chance to prove himself innocent, but honestly who
>> believes that it isn't HIS blood in the "Valv Piti" bags, come on...
>
>Cool. I'm gonna tell the whole internet that you're a child molesting
>scumbag, and you can try and prove you aren't, fair enough?
>Bill C
Why not, but you know exactly what I mean, why on earth would a Puerto
bag be labelled"Vilv Piti" if it wasn't his and hey, he can prove it's
not by taking a DNA test, where's the problem. If I had to take a DNA
test to save my ass I'd do it.
Since day one the Spaniards have done all they could to protect him, I
always found it suspicious that they would specify that HE was not in
the list when the whole thing started.
|
| |
Date: 20 Sep 2007 15:51:46
From: Bill C
Subject: Re: The moment of truth for Valverde - a DNA Test !
|
On Sep 20, 6:33 pm, "Frank Drackman" <frankdr...@yahoo.com > wrote:
>
>
>
> > Right after worlds the riders need to go on strike and form a decent
> > union, and refuse to ride until they collectively bargain a fair,
> > transparent, honest system, with the protections guaranteed by EU law.
> > Bill C- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
What I don't understand, and I think I understand what Sandy has said,
is that those contracts and a lot of the Wada/UCI stuff violates EU
labor law, at a minimum, and other things. I don't understand how any
agreement that's in violation of the law can be considered binding and
legal.
Bill C
|
| | |
Date: 21 Sep 2007 16:47:23
From: Michael Press
Subject: Re: The moment of truth for Valverde - a DNA Test !
|
In article
<1190328706.697301.179560@w3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com >,
Bill C <tritonrider@verizon.net > wrote:
> On Sep 20, 6:33 pm, "Frank Drackman" <frankdr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >
> > > Right after worlds the riders need to go on strike and form a decent
> > > union, and refuse to ride until they collectively bargain a fair,
> > > transparent, honest system, with the protections guaranteed by EU law.
> > > Bill C quoted text -
>
> What I don't understand, and I think I understand what Sandy has said,
> is that those contracts and a lot of the Wada/UCI stuff violates EU
> labor law, at a minimum, and other things. I don't understand how any
> agreement that's in violation of the law can be considered binding and
> legal.
Sandy also said that getting the EU laws enforced in court
will take a year or more out of the rider's life and pocket.
--
Michael Press
|
| | |
Date: 20 Sep 2007 17:33:43
From: Frank Drackman
Subject: Re: The moment of truth for Valverde - a DNA Test !
|
"Bill C" <tritonrider@verizon.net > wrote in message
news:1190328706.697301.179560@w3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> On Sep 20, 6:33 pm, "Frank Drackman" <frankdr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>
>> > Right after worlds the riders need to go on strike and form a decent
>> > union, and refuse to ride until they collectively bargain a fair,
>> > transparent, honest system, with the protections guaranteed by EU law.
>> > Bill C- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> What I don't understand, and I think I understand what Sandy has said,
> is that those contracts and a lot of the Wada/UCI stuff violates EU
> labor law, at a minimum, and other things. I don't understand how any
> agreement that's in violation of the law can be considered binding and
> legal.
> Bill C
>
OK, if it does why didn't Valverde fight to get it removed?
I believe that the answer is that he wanted his. His money, his fame, his
endorsements, his lifestyle. Now as an accused doper he has very little
leverage.
|
| |
Date: 20 Sep 2007 13:29:38
From:
Subject: Re: The moment of truth for Valverde - a DNA Test !
|
On Sep 20, 1:05 pm, Bill C <tritonri...@verizon.net > wrote:
> On Sep 20, 12:02 pm, Keith <nos...@nospam.com> wrote:
>
> > Wonder why McQuaid waited until now to pull that trump card, my money
> > says Valverde refuses to have DNA tested invoking legal rights,
> > freedom, etc...
>
> >http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2007/sep07/sep20news2&fro...
>
> I remember reading somewhere that he said exactly that. He didn't feel
> that he should have to give up his rights to prove himself innocent
> when his own federation and government have said there's nothing to
> the charges. Once again "Guilty as hell and a cheating scumbag", until
> they can prove themselves innocent.
Indeed! But consider - Floyd didn't trust these bums to act legally so
it made all of the case public and sure enough now we can all see that
they don't give a damn even about their own rules.
> Right after worlds the riders need to go on strike and form a decent
> union, and refuse to ride until they collectively bargain a fair,
> transparent, honest system, with the protections guaranteed by EU law.
As for me this is the last straw.
|
| |
Date: 20 Sep 2007 13:05:12
From: Bill C
Subject: Re: The moment of truth for Valverde - a DNA Test !
|
On Sep 20, 12:02 pm, Keith <nos...@nospam.com > wrote:
> Wonder why McQuaid waited until now to pull that trump card, my money
> says Valverde refuses to have DNA tested invoking legal rights,
> freedom, etc...
>
> http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2007/sep07/sep20news2&fro...
I remember reading somewhere that he said exactly that. He didn't feel
that he should have to give up his rights to prove himself innocent
when his own federation and government have said there's nothing to
the charges. Once again "Guilty as hell and a cheating scumbag", until
they can prove themselves innocent.
Right after worlds the riders need to go on strike and form a decent
union, and refuse to ride until they collectively bargain a fair,
transparent, honest system, with the protections guaranteed by EU law.
Bill C
|
| | |
Date: 21 Sep 2007 02:00:36
From: Keith
Subject: Re: The moment of truth for Valverde - a DNA Test !
|
On Thu, 20 Sep 2007 13:05:12 -0700, Bill C <tritonrider@verizon.net >
wrote:
>On Sep 20, 12:02 pm, Keith <nos...@nospam.com> wrote:
>> Wonder why McQuaid waited until now to pull that trump card, my money
>> says Valverde refuses to have DNA tested invoking legal rights,
>> freedom, etc...
>>
>> http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2007/sep07/sep20news2&fro...
>
>I remember reading somewhere that he said exactly that. He didn't feel
>that he should have to give up his rights to prove himself innocent
>when his own federation and government have said there's nothing to
>the charges. Once again "Guilty as hell and a cheating scumbag", until
>they can prove themselves innocent.
Well there he has a chance to prove himself innocent, but honestly who
believes that it isn't HIS blood in the "Valv Piti" bags, come on...
|
| | |
Date: 20 Sep 2007 15:33:30
From: Frank Drackman
Subject: Re: The moment of truth for Valverde - a DNA Test !
|
"Bill C" <tritonrider@verizon.net > wrote in message
news:1190318712.372502.105880@w3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> On Sep 20, 12:02 pm, Keith <nos...@nospam.com> wrote:
>> Wonder why McQuaid waited until now to pull that trump card, my money
>> says Valverde refuses to have DNA tested invoking legal rights,
>> freedom, etc...
>>
>> http://www.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2007/sep07/sep20news2&fro...
>
> I remember reading somewhere that he said exactly that. He didn't feel
> that he should have to give up his rights to prove himself innocent
> when his own federation and government have said there's nothing to
> the charges. Once again "Guilty as hell and a cheating scumbag", until
> they can prove themselves innocent.
He signed a contract that siad that he was guilty until proven innocent, why
would you expect anything different?
I agree that the riders should have a strong union but until stars like
Valverde are willing to give up short-term revenue for long-term rights it
will never happen. He was in a great position before he signed his last
contract to make a stand on the issue but instead took the money and ran.
> Right after worlds the riders need to go on strike and form a decent
> union, and refuse to ride until they collectively bargain a fair,
> transparent, honest system, with the protections guaranteed by EU law.
> Bill C
>
|
|
